January 2018

blob · All-time great

January 2018

indiana · Tennis legend

blob wrote:
I can't speak for the original poster, but I interpret the caveat as necessary to avoid everyone just retelling the same obvious answer, which is great, and a celebration, but not a reflection of opinions and highlights of the month-in-review.

Oh, I get that, for their original question. But if then going on to consider how was the month as a whole then Kyle can't be left out just like you mentioning these other nations and some Slam performances.

blob · All-time great

indiana wrote:
blob wrote:
I can't speak for the original poster, but I interpret the caveat as necessary to avoid everyone just retelling the same obvious answer, which is great, and a celebration, but not a reflection of opinions and highlights of the month-in-review.
Oh, I get that, for their original question. But if then going on to consider how was the month as a whole then Kyle can't be left out just like you mentioning these other nations and some Slam performances.

Ah, I see. But, even then, trade off the top headline items from each of my examples against Kyle, and you're still left with substantial meat on the January bone for France & Germany. That being the case even though I only covered the womens side; there may well be other similar level or greater equivalents in the French & German mens exploits for the month. Also, you can add any of our 'peer' nations and that would be the case, I just picked the most obvious Euro-Peers.

So, even if we exclude the stand-outs of the month for each country as a whole (approximately, that, for each of their respective auudiences: Kyle=Kerber=Kiki GS Champ), we're still thin, and that has nothing to do with it having been January. Or, conversely, including Kyle doesn't really change the overall math: we had one monumentally great thing that we could remember and then were scratching around (again, Hev's SF is not to be sniffed at - I admit, though, I had already forgotten it! )

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

I also took it as meaning that Kyle's achievement was so clearly out front, it was an obvious answer and therefore there was an interest to see what else had caught peoples eye.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

But it's obvious, really, that France - say - will do better than us in terms of you will find a lot of French who have done well. It's a given. It's just a question of numbers. They have ten in the top 100. And 51 (51!!!) in the top 500.

So, out of 51 you will find several star performers (in the same way that Kyle was a star performer for us).

You also will find lots of French that have done really badly. Whether it's because of January or whatever.

You can work out the percentage increase/decrease overall if you wish but it really just comes down to the same thing - if you have a big pool to choose from, you will always find certain results that back up your case, whichever case you're arguing.

Indeed, the French forums are actually full of doom and gloom, they think the world is ending, because out of their 10 top 100 male players, only one is under 25.

blob · All-time great

Which is kind of the point: our pool is smaller. We can't though use that as an excuse for why we don't have more success, comparable to our ostensible peers.
It's the old chestnut: adjusting for exceptions and anomalies (like Andy generally, or Kyle in January, Johanna last year etc) why is our baseline so bad?
January just reinforces this, and the comparison to peer nations too - they do have larger pools, so could easily find replacements. We don't. If, as generally in January, we underperform, there isn't going to be any surprise breakthrough or success to replace it.
Why don't we have more players so that we can just look further down the list if needs be, and a question like, 'What's everyone's favourite moments of January been' doesn't generally elicit the repsonse,

or the defence that, well, it's early in the season?
A topic which has, of course, been well discussed all over this forum many times, but it still holds and there's still very little apparent traction on improving it, so, to me, the question stands.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

But the fact that the GB pool is smaller IS a reason.
We have two top 100 male players.
And had one mega success (Kyle).
So that's 50% mega success.
The French didn't have 50% mega success. Way less.
So you could say we did 'better'. It all depends how you're looking at it.
(NB I'm not disagreeing that the lack of depth if a huge problem but I'm just saying you can't say one guy doing well is an exception if actually you've only got a handful of guys playing at all).

blob · All-time great

That strikes me as the way the LTA might like to frame it. Keep expectations low.
If we have zero pros at all, and then one Brit player somehow wins a qualifying match somewhere, we have 'mega-success' because our expectations would be absolutely zero. Reductio ad absurdam, but illustrative. Sort of how, for a long time, a Brit woman making the second round at Wimbledon was a notable, meritorious, 'thing', in the absence of recent precedent. I mean, it was true, but should that be the limit of our ambition, and are we not losing sight of the bigger question?

I had a long bit that followed about the chickens and eggs of small pools and national underperformance, and the false equivalency of the top 100 example. I think though in terms of the thread, it's better to say that Kyle was brilliant, and that whilst being righteously celebrated to the maximum, it also quietly papers over the usual cracks.
Which could be malignly misconstrued as though I were arguing for Kyle to have had no success so that we could more objectively assess things!

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

blob, I think you're possibly mixing up two things.
I also think that overall British tennis is dire. And the LTA are the main reason. Nothing could be more clear.
My point was simple that January wasn't a disaster just because the general picture of tennis is dire. Indeed, January was pretty good as far as dire British tennis goes.

blob · All-time great

I understand that.
I don't think the two things are separable though. I see it as: One player having a great January does not a good January for British tennis, make. It's a good month for that player.

Edit: TFW when you mistype separable, and you get spearable - still a word, entirely different spin on the sentence though!

-- Edited by blob on Thursday 1st of February 2018 07:36:08 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

Indeed, CD.

As said, it has been so often discussed and will be again how we compare so badly generally in such as depth to our near neighbours of similar sized populations. If we start comparing how many successes we have each month with say France it will no doubt be pretty poor just about every month. We are where we are and can but hope that things will show some improvement over time but there are many issues.

However, with this situation when one guy, the guy that we generally have most hopes for in the future, breaks through to a Slam SF and gives a reply to various ongoing concerns ( well, particularly from this poster for one, but still big whatever ) then sorry it most certainly cannot ( OK, should not ) be seen as a poor month for British tennis. It just wasn't.

And for general lower levels, away from tour and Slam level, I do still think that January, with its lower number of tournaments and sample size from the already limited British pool, and being early doors after the close season break, is just about the last month I would be hanging any hat on. Same for all nations, but still, and the other comment earlier in the thread about everyone seeming to be going backwards apart from Kyle and Aidan a bit strange re a few other individuals who have played and generally not done badly at all and moreso some who haven't yet.

blob · All-time great

indiana wrote:
[...]
However, with this situation when one guy, the guy that we generally have most hopes for in the future, breaks through to a Slam SF and gives a reply to various ongoing concerns ( well, particularly from this poster for one, but still big whatever ) then sorry it most certainly cannot ( OK, should not ) be seen as a poor month for British tennis. It just wasn't.

There is an extension to this argument then, that says that all of Andy's many many good months were good months for British tennis. I don't see that this follows; we have often had Andy alone. Nor does it for any singular player. Nor does it for any specific achievement of that singular player, e.g. "breaks through to a Slam SF and gives a reply to various ongoing concerns". It's great for that player. What else have we as a nation got? If you start with the question, 'what was your favourite moment in January for <player x>', then expand to that to the question originally in this thread, and the answers are the same, because there's nothing else really up for consideration; not just comparable, because of the heights scaled by that player; even in consideration, then you're talking about a single data point, and that can't represent a nation satisfactorily, to me.

It's good for the supporters of British tennis to have a wonderful thing to celebrate, for sure, but that's not the same thing. It could be argued that successes like this are good becasue they provide an example and/or inspiration for others; maybe. Then we're back to all of Andy's good months: how long can we dine off a great example alone?

I believe that for it to be considered a 'good month' for British tennis, then we need more (and probably much more) than one achievement; a wide base to the pyramid to provide a stable foundation to the claim, rather than a single brick tower, no matter how magnificently tall. I think several, or hopefully many, moderate accomplishments are more valuable to the overall health of 'GB Tennis' than one gigantic one.

Let's hope that though February is short, enough players play, often enough, and we are sufficiently far enough in to the season that there is no mitigation for it being 'early season', that we can return at month-end to consider 4 or 5 candidates usefully, in each of mens and womens tennis, as candidates at that time.

Very interesting to hear all your thoughts and differences of opinion, though.

indiana · Tennis legend

I did think September 2012, July 2013 and July 2016, plus indeed August 2012 and August 2016, were rather good months for British tennis.

February 1st 2018 not bad either, with Laura reaching a 60K doubles final ( more indication of a direction change down the line? ) and Maia smashing her CH win in beating a top 200 player to reach the Glasgow 25K QF in her initial tournament of the season, plus other wins. The year may be getting going

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Indeed.
In fact, the French think that January has been an awful month for French tennis. As said, they are practically suicidal.
Most federations look first to grand slams and if you underperform there, there is huge pressure on them.
The French would give their eye teeth for a grand slam winner (preferably male, which is a different problem).
Which, again, is not to say that French tennis is not in a hugely better place (overall) than British tennis - it is.
But, in French eyes, British tennis did better than French tennis did in January because GB had a semi-finalist and they didn't.

skibbarriz · Strong Club Player

Andy Murray winning Wimbledon in 2013 was a good day for British tennis. And if it wasn't, then British tennis has never had a good day in the pro era.
Unless it's only competitions such as the Davis Cup and Olympics that count. But then success in those had a lot to do with a certain Andy Murray again.
And why would the Olympics count as British tennis success when a Slam doesn't. They are both individual titles and nationality is acknowledged but secondary in both. Andy Murray won the mens singles, same way we'd recognise Usain Bolt as winning the mens 100m.

Imo, a single player doing oustandinlgy well = a moment of British tennis success.